Background-Constrictive pericarditis is a potentially reversible cause of heart failure that may be difficult to differentiate from restrictive myocardial disease and severe tricuspid regurgitation. Echocardiography provides an important opportunity to evaluate for constrictive pericarditis, and definite diagnostic criteria are needed. Methods and Results-Patients with surgically confirmed constrictive pericarditis (n=130) at Mayo Clinic (2008)(2009)(2010) were compared with patients (n=36) diagnosed with restrictive myocardial disease or severe tricuspid regurgitation after constrictive pericarditis was considered but ruled out. Comprehensive echocardiograms were reviewed in blinded fashion. Five principal echocardiographic variables were selected based on prior studies and potential for clinical use: (1) respiration-related ventricular septal shift, (2) variation in mitral inflow E velocity, (3) medial mitral annular e' velocity, (4) ratio of medial mitral annular e' to lateral e', and (5) hepatic vein expiratory diastolic reversal ratio. All 5 principal variables differed significantly between the groups. In patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter (n=29), all but mitral inflow velocity remained significantly different. Three variables were independently associated with constrictive pericarditis:(1) ventricular septal shift, (2) medial mitral e', and (3) hepatic vein expiratory diastolic reversal ratio. The presence of ventricular septal shift in combination with either medial e'≥9 cm/s or hepatic vein expiratory diastolic reversal ratio ≥0.79 corresponded to a desirable combination of sensitivity (87%) and specificity (91%). The specificity increased to 97% when all 3 factors were present, but the sensitivity decreased to 64%. Conclusions-Echocardiography allows differentiation of constrictive pericarditis from restrictive myocardial disease and severe tricuspid regurgitation. Respiration-related ventricular septal shift, preserved or increased medial mitral annular e' velocity, and prominent hepatic vein expiratory diastolic flow reversals are independently associated with the diagnosis of constrictive pericarditis. (Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:526-534.)

Constrictive pericarditis (CP) is a form of diastolic heart failure that arises because an inelastic pericardium inhibits cardiac filling. This disorder must be considered in the differential diagnosis for unexplained heart failure, particularly when the left ventricular ejection fraction is preserved. Risk factors for the development of CP include prior cardiac surgery and radiation therapy, but most cases are still deemed to be idiopathic. Making the diagnosis may be challenging and requires meticulous echocardiographic assessment, often supplemented by cross-sectional cardiac imaging and haemodynamic catheterisation. The key pathophysiological concepts, which serve as the basis for many of the diagnostic criteria, remain: (1) dissociation of intrathoracic and intracardiac pressures and (2) enhanced ventricular interaction. Complete surgical pericardiectomy is the only effective treatment for chronic CP. A subset of patients with subacute inflammatory CP, often identified by cardiac MRI, may respond to anti-inflammatory treatments.

Constrictive pericarditis is a potentially treatable cause of diastolic heart failure that arises because a diseased, inelastic pericardium restricts ventricular diastolic expansion. Affected patients present with heart failure with predominant right-sided symptoms and signs. The key to diagnosis is identification of the unique hemodynamic properties associated with constriction: dissociation of intrathoracic and intracardiac pressures and enhanced ventricular interaction. Comprehensive echocardiography with Doppler imaging is useful, but invasive hemodynamic assessment and cross-sectional imaging may be required for confirmation. Cardiac MRI provides an opportunity to evaluate for pericardial inflammation. Most cases of chronic constriction are progressive and life limiting, and require surgical pericardiectomy.

Detection of pulmonary embolism with helical CT may be less accurate than previously reported. Given its high specificity but relatively low sensitivity, helical CT may not have the ideal attributes of a first-line imaging study for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.